Jump to content
Premium Aquatics Aquarium Supplies

The Soft Cycle thread


Greenstar

Recommended Posts

Urchinhead
:P:lol:

 

Salinity shifts do NUZZING!

 

<fingers in ears> LALALALALALA I AM STILL NOT LISTENING TO WOMBAT! NO AIPTASIA! ALL DEAD! LALALALALALA!

 

Intellectually I understand that. Emotionally though... ;) Actually for Aiptasia (and other things) I use a combo of concentrated kalk paste and/or Joe's. And I jump on it the moment I see it. So far it works like a charm.

 

Seriously though it was more about killing off as much as what was left on the rock and recycling it bacteria-wise than anything else. Thats why it sat there for so long (actually it was because I was WAY late getting the 60 on line but that's my story and I am sticking to it! :lol: )

 

Oddly enough a fair amount of creatures did survive. Including a small star fish that I caught on the glass last night and a passel of 'pods that went scurrying when I turned the lights on. I wasn't planning on doing any testing until this Friday (It would be one week with water at that point) but since there is "Proof of Life" in the tank it looks like I am going to have to. And jump on the soft cycle bandwagon hard core.

 

Do those ammonia meters I see at PetCo actually work for salt water? I always was under the impression they don't.

Link to comment
Do those ammonia meters I see at PetCo actually work for salt water? I always was under the impression they don't.

 

We do some cycling with ammonium nitrate (rather than fish or live rock) and use these bad boys to tell us when to add more:

 

http://www.aquariumguys.com/ammoniaalert.html

 

I generally take pretty drastic action (like 50% water changes) if a tank ever shows anything above the zero level while animals are in it.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
Would it be ok to soft cycle in a smaller tank so I could use less water? I'm setting up a 35 gallon tank with a 10gal sump and a 10 gal refugium. I plan to have around 25 to 35 lbs of bulk reef supply "reef saver" rocks and around 15 to 25 lbs of Sea Life Inc rock (overnighted). So could I soft cycle the 15 to 25 lbs of live rock in say a 10 gal tank (with carbon and skimmer)? I'm thinking that the added gallonage of doing the soft cycle in the 55 gal system would help buffer the ammonia, nitrite, and nitrates much better than a 10 gal. But would it be worth the added trouble of the added gallons need for a 25%-50% water change on the 55 gal system? Of course as I write this I'm thinking that a 10 gal soft cycle system would probably require more water changes than the 55 gal system would, so the amount of water used would could be the same in the end. I have an ro/di unit so as long as I premake the salt water I guess the water changes will not be too big of a deal.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Probably a little late, since I just read through this thread again (for the tenth time), I would use the larger tank and do larger water changes, or more frequent water changes.

Link to comment
  • 4 months later...
I would also suggest, if one has the time and inclination, to prepare a chemically seeded wet/dry or fluidized bed filter in advance. It needn't be fancy or expensive. You can cycle this abiotically by adding ammonium nitrate or ammonium chloride and monitoring daily for N compounds. Once nitrate begins rising you can add larger and larger amounts (keeping total ammonia under 1.0ppm) to produce a "bioload".

 

This makes no sense if the goal is setting up a microbiologically balanced system; you can't stoichiometrically pre-determine what the load will be and set-up a filter before hand which will be balanced with the final load. One will always either over- or under-shoot the final load, and the final setup will still need to balance out microbiologically, i.e. cycle.

 

The point of a soft-cycle is for the life in the tank to NOT experience any discernable cycle. Abiotically cycling a tank with ammonium chloride is the farthest thing from soft-cycling that I can imagine. It also adds a completely unnecessary complication and source of imbalance. This thread has gone horribly wrong if that's what the discussion has turned into.

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...

Thanks for this thread... Ideally it sounds great but I read through and answered no to some of those questions and stopped reading. Not going to try it out.

Link to comment
Thanks for this thread... Ideally it sounds great but I read through and answered no to some of those questions and stopped reading. Not going to try it out.

 

I was kind of forced to do a softer cycle, myself.

 

I bought 25 pounds of Bali Live rock from AquaCON, before I knew better.

He shipped it ground from Florida to California. Took 8 days to arrive.

 

Needless to say, my live rock was essentially base rock by the time. In terms of coralline and hitchhikers.

 

A month after cycling that mess I bought another 25 pounds of uncured Bali from Premium Aquatics. Shipped overnight.

It was teeming with life(and death) on arrival. I cure cycled that, with foam fractionator running. And a month later it was still teeming with life. Polyp corals, crabs, sponges, coralline is off the hook alive, bristleworms, little rock feather dusters.

 

House had a weird and funky smell kinda for a week, but am very satisfied with the tank now. And with the bio diversity. Fighting nuisance algae still right now, but that will abate soon enough.

 

If you are interested in keeping hitchhikers and the like alive on your live rock. And want to have a biologically diverse tank, I (now) think that a soft or softer cycle is a viable and desirable way to go.

 

And can be done as simply intentionally, as I found on accident. Buy half the live rock you want. Cycle that for a month. Turn on your skimmer, and then add the rest of your live rock. Pretty simple process.

Link to comment

I've actually soft cycled both my 95 and 24 gallon reef systems. I had very good experience with it and never had to battle the algae issues. All I did was 10% daily water changes for the first 2 months and a 20% water change every week. My 95 gallon has a protein skimmer and phosphate reactor with about 175 lbs of cured live rock. I bought it from an established system that was running for about 3 years. There was minimal die off because it was only in transit for about 30 min in buckets of SW. Along with the rock came several fish and a few corals. All have survived for the last two years even during the cycling process. Obviously, there was some die off because I had a different aquascape than the original owner, but it was very minimal and my nitrates only went up to 10. Because of the frequent water changes the phosphates, nitrites, ammonia, remained at 0. However, I did have a low PH at about 7.9 for the first two weeks and I gradually raised it with some reef buffers.

 

 

I did the same last year when I bought a 24 gallon Aquapod from CC. It came with acans, trumpets, palys, carpet nem, GSP, Blue cloves, pair of clowns, and a dottyback. The tank also had about 35 lbs of LR and a 1/2 inch of LS. I got rid of the LS and put some fresh sand in there when I set it up. The system was up for 2 yrs and there was awesome growth on the corals. There's no skimmer and the only filtration is the filter pads, carbon bag, and phosban media bag. I did 1-3 gallon daily water changes and a 5-10 gallon water change weekly. I bought the tank last April. I still do daily and weekly water changes and the tank is doing awesome. Here are some pics. I obviously added some corals in the last few months.

 

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv202/n.../IMG_0230-1.jpg

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv202/n...16/IMG_0237.jpg

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv202/n...16/IMG_0233.jpg

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv202/n...16/IMG_1755.jpg

http://i684.photobucket.com/albums/vv202/n...16/P1000354.jpg

 

 

Hope this helps

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
danthenewreefman

I didn't know what a soft cycle was....but that is what I did, basically, except with fuge and no skimmer... I guess that is why I have purple going crazy at 3 1/2 weeks. This does work people.

 

I believe the quality of the rock is the biggest factor; if you're like me and can't stand waiting 3 months +, buy the best (and that usually means most expensive) rock you can find.

Link to comment
danthenewreefman
I didn't know what a soft cycle was....but that is what I did, basically, except with fuge and no skimmer... I guess that is why I have purple going crazy at 3 1/2 weeks. This does work people.

 

I believe the quality of the rock is the biggest factor; if you're like me and can't stand waiting 3 months +, buy the best (and that usually means most expensive) rock you can find.

 

 

My rock was $10per Lb from LFS, so it wasn't out of the water more than 15min. Also I believe a key factor is gathering bacteria (from good healthy looking tanks) from multiple different locations. You can't expect one "rock" to have all the bacteria the ocean contains, nor will 100 rocks, but the more of a variety you get the more varied you're biological filter will be.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
Qld Reefer

Hi guys i know this is an old thread. But just checking on a few details as I am trying to do a soft type cycle.

 

I have a 20gal AIO (Cheap Copy is all thats avaliable here is OZ) it was cycled for two weeks with seeded Aragonite and very cured base rock and 4kg on new cured rock.

I have just added 10kg of the freshest rock I've every seen straight off the Barrier Reef shipped directly form the collector the day he came ashore.

the life in this is amazing :o it's been in the tank for two days, I've started skimming and daily water changes, also have carbon and fresh macro running on a 24hr light cycle.

Am I on the right path so far?

any things to look out for? tank is begining to smell as the die off occurs :eek:

all suggestions greatly appreciated

thanks

Link to comment
lakshwadeep

How big are your water changes? You might want to inspect for clearly dead things.

 

Skimming and water changes are great. Carbon and macroalgae may help (the light cycle doesn't have to be 24 hours).

 

 

Hi guys i know this is an old thread. But just checking on a few details as I am trying to do a soft type cycle.

 

I have a 20gal AIO (Cheap Copy is all thats avaliable here is OZ) it was cycled for two weeks with seeded Aragonite and very cured base rock and 4kg on new cured rock.

I have just added 10kg of the freshest rock I've every seen straight off the Barrier Reef shipped directly form the collector the day he came ashore.

the life in this is amazing :o it's been in the tank for two days, I've started skimming and daily water changes, also have carbon and fresh macro running on a 24hr light cycle.

Am I on the right path so far?

any things to look out for? tank is begining to smell as the die off occurs :eek:

all suggestions greatly appreciated

thanks

Edited by lakshwadeep
Link to comment
Qld Reefer

Water change size planned was dependant upon test results really, higher the ammonia greater the water change.

as for dead stuff was considering removing some of the rock for a light scrub as there is defintly some macro dying on there.. just love to keep the acro and monti alive if I can...

Link to comment
lakshwadeep

If you want an acropora/montipora to survive, you will need to keep ammonia at effectively 0 ppm. Try to do large water changes (50% or more), and make sure your water source is filtered (like distilled or RO/DI).

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Will this work as a sort of pre-cycle?

I was thinking of using bio balls in the filter section of my CL 22gal, and fill the fuge with cheap live rock pieces to get the bacteria in the tank. Then i will try to cycle that with dead shrimp or ammonia. Once this is cycled I was thinking of ordering high quality LR and LS same day delivery to my local airport. After I do a full water change, I would add the LR and LS and then I can slowly remove the bio balls over several weeks.

Link to comment
Will this work as a sort of pre-cycle?

I was thinking of using bio balls in the filter section of my CL 22gal, and fill the fuge with cheap live rock pieces to get the bacteria in the tank. Then i will try to cycle that with dead shrimp or ammonia. Once this is cycled I was thinking of ordering high quality LR and LS same day delivery to my local airport. After I do a full water change, I would add the LR and LS and then I can slowly remove the bio balls over several weeks.

 

Even same day delivery would cause some die-off and it would not be a soft cycle...

 

Just get the rock and put it in your tank. It will do its thing even if you try to build up the bacteria before hand.

 

IMO, live sand is not really that huge of a thing to order. Just get regular sand and put the LR on top of it. It will become LS soon enough.

 

dsoz

Link to comment
brandon429

don't remember the last time I was so enthralled by a thread. don't keep up with any new trends so I hadn't clicked on this thread even once to know what a soft cycle was, and its amazing to think of the countless type arguments I have been in advocating this idea not even knowing it had a coined moniker already, wow. thought I was alone.

 

in no way do I dislike hard cycles either John, as some of my friends didn't have access to wet stuff and had to do it the old fashioned way, which they deserve more credit in the end for success anyway for 'hand assembing' their automobiles...but if given the choice I like to choose soft simply for the quick startup.

 

there's only one thing I want to add/question, and that's why does one even have to have the initial ammonia reading to begin with? To me, that makes it -not- a soft cycle, SC in the purest sense Im claiming should be all ammonia free, at every step in the tank, such that you do -not- have to test the water more than a couple times total because the biology will be trustworthy, always. I have ran several year+ pico reefs with online threads and not one time has ammonia ever, ever been detected even when filling up the tank with corals on day 2 or 3. here's why:

 

so the ammonia in the first thread is coming from dieoff, where benthic life was previously supported by aged systems (or the ocean) with great internal floc/marine snow/natural suspended life and larvae. Thats what the benthic array of sponges, feather dusters and micropods feed upon, and its usually the #1 lacking foodstuff in a new (and aged) nano, so the populations starve and dieoff, I can see that. Also, emersing the rock or handling it rough during shipment in bags of rotting water can also cause dieoff I see that too.

 

But what about only selecting pristine small pieces from an aged aquarium, where the rock has been in there for months and is all purple and has the *normal* benthic densities based on its recent lifespan in an *aquarium*? why does there have to be dieoff when transferring to the new nano reef, from an existing one or from a slightly larger 75 gallon LFS live rock tank which isn't itself registering detectable ammonia? I say instead of taking live rock we could never support, and killing some of it, we leave that stuff in place and only work with aquarium goods, where all is selected for this low suspended nutrient, high dissolved nutrient lifestyle?

 

So in retrospect, soft cycling is all I've ever known, its all Ive ever done, and I've never seen ammonia I've never even owned the test kit for it, was a borrowed one the first few times I tested just because the books said you had to. after never finding it on my first pico, the test has never been ran again on several successive sytems and corals will indicate systemic ammonia faster than a test kit ;) so with them all bright and shiny id still claim there never was any. I simply buy rounded fist-sized chunks of purple rock, without a lot of extra growth and use the reefbowl to tack on the extra growth as selected for...its instant cycling, with instant coral loading and it works at the gallon level I find it vexing people with 20x tanks have a harder time... perhaps the fact I do only 100% water changes matters too lol

 

100% water changes are not harmful at least in non fish setups I can say that without challenge or my pico pics wouldn't show the density of life they do year in and out on the same tank with no changes. sponges, tube worms and unidentified hangers-on are there that did not begin there, to me a true soft cycle never had a chemical downside and was on the up and up from day one.

Edited by brandon429
Link to comment
don't remember the last time I was so enthralled by a thread. don't keep up with any new trends so I hadn't clicked on this thread even once to know what a soft cycle was, and its amazing to think of the countless type arguments I have been in advocating this idea not even knowing it had a coined moniker already, wow. thought I was alone.

 

in no way do I dislike hard cycles either John, as some of my friends didn't have access to wet stuff and had to do it the old fashioned way, which they deserve more credit in the end for success anyway for 'hand assembing' their automobiles...but if given the choice I like to choose soft simply for the quick startup.

 

there's only one thing I want to add/question, and that's why does one even have to have the initial ammonia reading to begin with? To me, that makes it -not- a soft cycle, SC in the purest sense Im claiming should be all ammonia free, at every step in the tank, such that you do -not- have to test the water more than a couple times total because the biology will be trustworthy, always. I have ran several year+ pico reefs with online threads and not one time has ammonia ever, ever been detected even when filling up the tank with corals on day 2 or 3. here's why:

 

so the ammonia in the first thread is coming from dieoff, where benthic life was previously supported by aged systems (or the ocean) with great internal floc/marine snow/natural suspended life and larvae. Thats what the benthic array of sponges, feather dusters and micropods feed upon, and its usually the #1 lacking foodstuff in a new (and aged) nano, so the populations starve and dieoff, I can see that. Also, emersing the rock or handling it rough during shipment in bags of rotting water can also cause dieoff I see that too.

 

But what about only selecting pristine small pieces from an aged aquarium, where the rock has been in there for months and is all purple and has the *normal* benthic densities based on its recent lifespan in an *aquarium*? why does there have to be dieoff when transferring to the new nano reef, from an existing one or from a slightly larger 75 gallon LFS live rock tank which isn't itself registering detectable ammonia? I say instead of taking live rock we could never support, and killing some of it, we leave that stuff in place and only work with aquarium goods, where all is selected for this low suspended nutrient, high dissolved nutrient lifestyle?

 

So in retrospect, soft cycling is all I've ever known, its all Ive ever done, and I've never seen ammonia I've never even owned the test kit for it, was a borrowed one the first few times I tested just because the books said you had to. after never finding it on my first pico, the test has never been ran again on several successive sytems and corals will indicate systemic ammonia faster than a test kit ;) so with them all bright and shiny id still claim there never was any. I simply buy rounded fist-sized chunks of purple rock, without a lot of extra growth and use the reefbowl to tack on the extra growth as selected for...its instant cycling, with instant coral loading and it works at the gallon level I find it vexing people with 20x tanks have a harder time... perhaps the fact I do only 100% water changes matters too lol

 

100% water changes are not harmful at least in non fish setups I can say that without challenge or my pico pics wouldn't show the density of life they do year in and out on the same tank with no changes. sponges, tube worms and unidentified hangers-on are there that did not begin there, to me a true soft cycle never had a chemical downside and was on the up and up from day one.

 

I'd have to agree and have used this method for the last two years to setup new tanks and transfer old ones. As long as you start off with cycled rock from an established system I've had 0 ammonia readings and stopped testing ammonia years ago. To be honest, the only test I use are Ca, Mg, Alk, and occassionally Nitrates, but even then I don't test for nitrates because I could tell by looking at my tanks if there's any issues. I've been using this method in my two nano's not only during the cycling period, but I do small daily water changes and a larger weekly water change in my 24 gallon. I've had corals in all of my tanks because they were bought as established systems for the most part, except my 12 gallon AP. I transfered over the rock and sand from my 95 gallon into the 12 gallon and added some coral frags since day one. All are alive and healthy. What also helped was a ball of chaeto in the main display the size of a baseball. After 6 weeks it was the size of a softball, but every coral in there was alive and thriving. Anyways, this is how I will always cycle my tanks and there's no use of throwing in dead stuff to jump start anything. However, I would have to say that it takes more dedication, but the results are a lot less issues and headaches in the long run..

Link to comment
lakshwadeep

I think greenstar had in mind uncured live rock to have a soft cycle ("The key to a good soft cycle is high quality, fresh live rock..."), not using cured (pre-cycled) rock, where a cycle is unlikely to happen in the first place. He goes on to say "A lot of people on this site I have seen claiming to soft cycle their tanks using very white or drab rock with almost no life, this entirely defeats the purpose of a soft cycle."

 

The way I interpreted the soft cycle is that it's meant to save hitchhikers that would be missing in LFS cured rock, unless it was soft cycled there.

Link to comment

and to add the life on the live rock I think should actually be lesser than the ideal, ie whatever one is allowed to grow in their system is what should be on the rock. starting with the growth attained in months under refugiums, exceptional planktonic feeding or even worse the ocean and then moving it to a 14 gallon biocube spells dieoff nearly everytime.

 

just my opinion but the large water change should be the soft cyclers best friend just as a safety net for whatever~this is a rather impatient technique lol

Link to comment

So you disagree with 50% of the "soft cycle" idea. The waterchanges are ok, but you don't want rock that is covered in oceanic life. I also marvel at your accusation that this is a "rather impatient technique".

 

For the people who advocate this method (such as myself), this isn't a patience/impatience issue, it is the development of a new paradigm.

 

The impetus behind the soft cycle technique is a different paradigm than you typically find. Generally, aquarists stay away from ocean hitchers and go for "cured" rock that's been in an LFS tub for 6 months, hoping to avoid mantis shrimp or difficult microalgae. In contrast, the soft-cycler attempts to retain as many oceanic hitchhikers as possible.

Edited by Mr. Fosi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
lol you wanted to argue because of my syntax but great science kept you from filleting what I wrote thats neat Fos feel free to come back firmer next post Im just saying we don't disagree on specifics all that much in past posts.

 

Proper syntax is important when trying to convey meaning. Try using proper sentences and perhaps you may actually get your point across here.

 

Maybe I don't take what the OP wrote about soft cycling lock, stock and barrel yes~

 

In my mind soft cycling just means never detecting ammonia, and starting off with bioloading quicker than past paradigms. ie impatient, thanks for your correction :)

 

So then you do disagree with about half the reason that this method was first advocated.

 

Forgive me for saying so but it really doesn't matter what soft cycling is in your mind. You've already made it clear that you don't like the paradigm so I don't see how a strawman helps you here. If you want to talk about your own view of soft-cyling, that's fine but let's not pretend that you're talking about the same thing as everyone else here.

 

If I could be pinned down to one statement, and held accountable, it would be that you can know, predict and utilize the presence of ammonia and nitrite without ever testing for them because of the order of operations one used in building a tank.

 

I think I'll go ahead and hold you accountable to each statement you make and I expect you do to the same for me. This is a great favor to those who want to increase in wisdom and knowledge.

 

In this case, you appear to be arguing from one or a combination of these implicit assumptions:

 

1) We (the general population of aquarists) misunderstand the order of the nitrogen cycle.

2) The nitrogen cycle does not occur in the same sequence in all aquaria.

3) We cannot use past evidence to predict the course of future events in aquaria.

 

I'm going go ahead and categorically reject all three of them and say that your argument is both fallacious and needlessly argumentative.

 

use a messy, eclectic order of operations and you get no repeatability.

 

Once again, your meaning is lost because you fail to actually explain yourself. At best, this is a truism as stated. Please hang up and try again.

 

these are not unpredictable compounds, they are solidly repeatable among systems if close stocking techniques are applied, that's the new science to me

 

What are you talking about here?

Edited by Mr. Fosi
Link to comment
You did escalate he he thats a suprise

 

What's a real surprise is that you consider the request for sentences and actual reasoning "escalation".

 

... I am saying that more people (who aren't challenged enough) in these/this forum misstate the nitrogen cycle and how that is unique to nano reefs vs large tanks, just like denitrification, etc and they also like to write their statements in a factual way. challenging that if its wrong is my schtik, its what I live for due to ocd in pico reefs, lets you and I play.

 

So you are making the case that the scale of the system affects the order of the nitrogen cycle? I'd really like to see some published info on that. So far, what I hear is your opinion backed up by your personal data and set against the entirety of current understanding regarding the cycling of nitrogen in the environment.

 

Only people with test readings can participate, without test readings from a newly established tank all argument is null. I have my old ones from newly established tanks to go on, you get yours.

 

I have a better idea: since you are the one making claims that contradict what is currently known about the biogeochemistry of nitrogen, how about you pony up the evidence and make your case?

 

Wherever ammonia registered, lets talk about that and I'll tell you how it could have been prevented in the soft cycle. Fos rather than just witty types we can be really specific here, you and I could make a thread for the ages keep on track. quote me like you have been doing, only start here<

 

When nitrite magically appeard, after nitrate registered and ammonia was zero, we'll talk about that too. And I'll ask for any other posters who have seen that in the life of their reef tanks to simply post readings like 0 ammonia .25 nitrite 5-10ppm nitrate or 0 ammonia .25 nitrite 0 nitrate. something is off, it does not work that way ever when using cured live rock but I'll list some permutations that could change things up too. hit that up if it seems wrong to you man.

 

Using what testing method and what were your LODs?

 

So you are making the case that because many people have reported non-detect for the various nitrogen ions, that shows that the nitrogen cycle doesn't actually proceed in the established way of approx: N2 => NH3 => NO2 => NO3 => NO2 => NH3 => N2?

 

Have you considered that, when the order of detected compounds is apparently out of step with the order of the nitrogen cycle, it isn't that the cycle has changed but rather the populations/activities of the various microbial players is unequal?

 

Do you understand that "the nitrogen cycle" is a biogeochemical term and I am not using it in the same way that aquarists "cycle" their tank?

 

thanks for joining fos, takers are few this place needs checks and balances lol thank you for providing mine

 

No probs.

 

I do set up systems all the time under my method, do you have proof that my ways do not work?

 

Please define "work", since you're the first one to use that term in this discussion. Perhaps this is where you are missing the point and a definition may help clear a lot up.

 

So far I have seen you advocating a different method than what is laid out in the OP. The fact that I recognize that your method and intent are different does not mean that I think they are inferior. If you like systems like you set them up, there's nothing wrong with that. What I have taken issue with is your attempt to redefine what a soft cycle is in the context of the discussion in this thread.

 

 

Id like to see yours, but more importantly Id like to see your test results rather than your exceptional banter, my old test results were exactly as written. the test results I get in pm (later to be submitted as evidence against your claim) are exactly what I wrote, why would a nano reef og lie man? its wiser to just post ammonia and nitrite readings and argue for that, but you won't, you'll just argue up more philosophy.

 

I understand that you have a long record of results. I am sure that you are quite confidant in their validity. The real question is: so what?

 

What we have here isn't a question of "philosophy" or "proof in the pudding", it is a question of you entering a thread and trying to redefine key terms and making assertions about the motives of people who you don't know... And I don't mean me. Not everyone who wants to soft cycle fresh LR is impatient.

 

Your login date shows four years although Im sure your nano reefing goes back far longer, it always does with you guys.

 

Who are "you guys"? Your posts are beginning to hint that you have come here with a chip on your shoulder and with a need to prove yourself, rather than a desire to genuinely contribute to the ongoing discussion.

 

You want to argue the semantics of soft cycling as a detraction from facts I want to hold you to, who cares if you don't like my definitions I was trying to be helpful from experience.

 

You can't be helpful in a discussion like this by redefining the key term ("soft cycle") according to your own opinion. This thread was created to discuss a specific methodology that was developed for a specific purpose: to retain oceanic hitchhikers for as long as possible.

 

If you want to say my designs from 2001 using this method are wrong and not repeatable to the several ongoing discussions in my inbox that's just silly and not worth the battle but it will be fun proving you wrong with pms from about 15 people on this board-- if I can get their permission to inject them perpendicular to your diatribe. The only thing I will be posting are the test measurements, no personal opinions.

 

Once again, your consensus of people from this forum claiming that the nitrogen does not undergo the same oxidation/reduction reactions regardless of scale proves very little. How much of your data has been published in scientific, peer reviewed periodicals? Not that this guarantees you're right, but it certainly would put you on a similar footing to those to professionally apply the aquatic sciences.

 

I would love know what people on this board agree with your claim that nitrogen biogeochemistry is different depending on system scale, feel free to PM me a list of their names so I can write them and ask them myself.

Link to comment
In every tank I have ever setup or coached we have never, ever detected nitrite, how about those apples. Hell the youtube comments alone describe the journey for a few, you just spend too much time on nr not gettin that ego checked and not innovatin a whole lot but Im sure you'd edge me in a diction assay kind Sir lol.

 

I think the problem here is that you think that I am "The Man" and that I need to be challenged. The issue is that you refuse to actually deal with the substance of the very specific issues I brought up.

 

You can play the "you act smart but you ain't" or the "you type real purdy" games if you like. It doesn't hide the fact that you completely ignored the specific issues I took with what you said and them's the facts 'ol hoss.

 

When you introduce highly diverse live rock into a new system, be it wild caught (which is lame and unsustainable if not maricultured, stop it) or heavily aged in a tank with exceptional feeding or a refugium...

 

Another assumption that just isn't supported by what I've seen here on the forum. The threads that I have followed where people have done soft cycles have primarily been started with Gulf coast maricultured rock. I haven't done a scientific poll and I admit that I haven't read hundreds of threads on the topic.

 

So, since my experience is highly subjective, I can't speak about what is more or less likely. I don't think you have the basis to speak in that way either, unless you've made it your profession to track the use of maricultured rock in marine aquaria.

 

There are trophic levels so diverse even reefers with 4 years experience don't talk about them :)

 

Do you really mean trophic "levels" rather than "interactions"? The idea of a "trophic level" is ecological and functionally, there aren't that many. The issue is how many interactions there are between levels. This is why you don't see ecological modelers fretting about how many trophic levels they have but rather the number species within them, the number of interactions and the rates that they proceed at.

 

Once again, you are making assumptions about and jabbing at my level of experience or understanding. What you don't seem to realize is that you're shadow boxing. You'll pardon me if I don't boast about myself.

 

... the benthic communities in live rock are better earned, and not placed with purchase, in the nano reef, for reasons unbecoming to a larger reef. I'll show you a pic of what I earned with my methods of treatment below as one way that works with verifiable proof (a pic).

 

Your value judgement about what is "better" is interesting. What makes one system or method better than another? We need some sort of metric here before you start using relative terms.

 

Once again, you are missing the point. This isn't about short-cutting to get benthic communities. For all of the soft-cyclers I've followed, it is about the diversity of organisms that rides in with the rock and attempting to retain as much as possible. It doesn't matter what foods you use, you can't make a sponge or a macroalgae spring from nothing. Yes, often there are resting cells present and the proper husbandry can cause them to develop into a full-fledged organism but that isn't the point. The point is to start with a system that is already very diverse and then retain it. You advocate starting with a system that is simple and trying to diversify it.

 

Is that wrong? No, but it isn't what we are talking about here either.

 

... quit assuming dieoff is not negotiable and unpredictable that's so yesterday and repetitive

 

Who is assuming these things?

 

It is clear that you have a great deal of experience with marine aquaria and that is an asset. The problem is that it isn't helping you in this thread because you have a fundamental misunderstanding about why this method is advocated. You seem to believe that you have uncovered some new data regarding the biogeochemistry of nitrogen... Or perhaps you aren't correctly using the term "nitrogen cycle". You also have a real tough time actually dealing with the substance of questions put to you. You immediately fall back on your opinion and your extensive, non-published, dataset. You also have no problem mentioning that you have a private consensus with people here on the forum, not understanding that this really doesn't help meet your burden of proof even if it is true.

 

So let's have another go and see if you can actually deal with what I said, shall we?

 

Please confirm/correct my initial statement of your position: You disagree with 50% of the "soft cycle" idea. The waterchanges are ok, but you don't want rock that is covered in oceanic life.

 

Using evidence outside your own head, please show how Soft Cycling as defined and discussed in this thread is "rather impatient technique". An explicit statement about the aim that people are allegedly impatient to reach would be helpful.

 

Do you or do you not ascribe to one or more of these assumptions:

 

1) We (the general population of aquarists) misunderstand the order of the nitrogen cycle.

2) The nitrogen cycle does not occur in the same sequence in all aquaria.

3) We cannot use past evidence to predict the course of future events in aquaria.

 

Please define "nitrogen cycle" as you are using it. I defined how I was using it earlier in this post and you can find a much more explicit definition here.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recommended Discussions

×
×
  • Create New...